Authors

Adjunct Instructor, American University School of International Service

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In ordinary times, NATO summits are generally staid and well-prepared events that celebrate the achievements of this nearly 70-year-old political and military alliance of North American and European countries.

The 2018 NATO summit in Brussels will likely include more drama.

The alliance, founded after World War II, collectively provides military security for all its members, from the United States and Canada in the West to the Baltic states in the East. Leaders from the alliance’s 29 member states will meet for two days in their new NATO headquarters on July 11.

As scholars who closely study NATO, we believe that personality clashes between world leaders could undermine NATO’s achievements so far in presenting a united front against Russia’s global aggressions. And they could prevent attempts to continue that joint effort.

Unusually quiet when the invasion first took place, NATO came out strong against Russia. They agreed to increase defense spending and military readiness to prevent Putin from invading other neighbors, particularly NATO’s three Baltic member states.

To do that, NATO established four new battalions along its “Eastern Flank,” reassuring Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland that NATO troops will defend their borders. It also developed a high-readiness task force that can rapidly respond to military aggression against NATO members.

His tactic as the NATO summit approaches has veered toward confrontational. Recently, the White House reportedly sent letters to a number of European partners – all NATO members – warning them of serious consequences if they failed to step up defense spending.

All U.S. presidents since NATO’s founding have expressed concerns about cost-sharing. But none have done so as bluntly or disdainfully as Trump does.

U.S. President Donald Trump at his first-ever NATO Summit, in Brussels, Belgium, in May 2017.Reuters/Kevin Coombs

The shadow of Putin

NATO summits are usually an easy opportunity for its member states to tell an uplifting story about the enduring vitality of the post-World War II global order.

Leaders from both sides of the Atlantic use these annual gatherings to show their unity against the global threats of the day. By extension, they effectively reaffirm the 70-year-old Western-led international economic and security system, in which NATO plays a key role.

A NATO summit marked by distrust and public divisions would be consequential at any time. This year it would be particularly detrimental because the NATO summit comes days before Trump’s first bilateral meeting with Putin, scheduled for July 16 in Helsinki.

For NATO’s European members, Russia is among the world’s most pressing security threats. Members are already concerned that Trump might do what he recently did with North Korea and make undue concessions to Russia – such as recognizing the annexation of Crimea or withdrawing U.S. troops from Germany. Those concerns would be heightened if the summit fails.

As Ian Lesser, director of the transatlantic-focused think tank the German Marshall Fund, has said of Trump’s Europe travel agenda, “Meeting Putin in the wake of a symbolic and successful NATO summit is one thing, but a meeting against the backdrop of a summit that goes badly is quite another.”